# Bays v. Orange County Board of County Commissioners

> Supreme Court of Florida · April 1, 1970 · 232 So. 2d 391

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7436110

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl BAYS v. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Travelers Insurance Company and Florida Industrial Commission
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** April 1, 1970
- **Citations:** 232 So. 2d 391; 1970 Fla. LEXIS 2833
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Drew
- **Judges:** Boyd, Carlton, Drew, Dry, Ervin, Hen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7436110

## Opinion text

DREW, Justice
(dissenting).
In my judgment it is neither logical nor reasonable to believe that claimant was “continuously disabled” for a period of two years during which he neither sought nor obtained medical attention of any nature whatever. His statement that he was financially unable to afford a doctor during those years when he admitted that he and his wife had a joint income of about $400 per month doesn’t impress me and obviously wasn’t accepted by the Judge of Industrial Claims. He said the only medication he had was aspirin and darvon during this period. These facts and the fact that he had travelled to West Virginia and back in a car — driving part of the time — had hunt *394 ed and fished on occasions, and participated in other activities during the two years certainly constituted “competent, substantial evidence” to support the findings of the Judge of Industrial Claims, which finding was affirmed by the Full Commission.
Moreover, here again, 1 I think we are departing from the long accepted rule that medical evidence must be based on “reasonable medical certainty.” Dr. Farrar’s evidence in this case — as related in the majority opinion — simply does not attain this status. It is speculative and is based on unreliable probabilities, not reasonable medical certainty.
I would deny certiorari.
. See my dissent in Walker v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp., Fla., 231 So.2d 210 , Opinion filed January 21, 1970.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7436110. Public record. Not legal advice.